Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

Can we revisit the idea of adding a sixth DS spot with the provision that that spot can only be used by a player taken after the second (or third) round of our annual draft.

This would give teams the chance to take a flyer on a player that could help them (either on their active roster or through a trade) down the road. This could be kind of like the NFL has the roster exemption for players that have gone to NFL Europe.

For more from the orignal thread:
http://predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4086

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I'm not sure how this would work exactly. If we add a 6th spot for a 2nd (or 3rd) or later pick, doesn't the round taken only come into an issue if the other 5 spots are taken by a higher pick? That is, if we allow a 6th spot for a 2nd or later pick, in reality we're just adding a 6th spot, since a team would have to have 5 first rounders on their DS and want to add another 1st rounder in order for the round limitation to matter. I don't see that happening anytime soon. If a team has six 1st round draft picks on their DS and none are worth activating, they can have as many DS spots if they want if that's all the better they can draft. :box

Looking over the roster app, unless I missed some, I see that only 3 4th round selections made rosters this year. I could see some sort of DS roster exemption made for 4th round selections. The mad tinkerer in me is thinking a whole bunch of crazy thoughts that could make this work. Originally my thought was that we could give one exemption per year, up to a total of 3, for 4th round selections that could be kept on the DS in addition to the 5, but we would limit their available contracts to say 3 years which would not count towards the DS contract year cap. This would allow us each to hold onto our 4th round selections, picks that every other team passed on multiple times, free and clear and if they happened to produce early in their careers, we'd get the benifits.

Then I thought what we could do is change these 4th rounders to the real DS, since that is really what it would be. All players we were waiting around for to develop. Say a 3 player DS squad, unlimited contract years, but only adding one player a year. Then change our DS to a practice squad, and introducing some people's ideas from last year of limited movement from the practice squad to the active roster in cases of emergencies (I've got ideas on how to implement that too).

Then I remembered Mike saying he wanted this to be a quiet off season. So I'll stop there.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I am liking this and would be very interested in subscribing to your newsletter!!

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I have no problems with som DS debate.. I could be convinced to institute a "practice squad (PS) and Development Squad (DS)" type system, where DS players are locked there unless promoted, but PS guys could move up or down based on some type of predefined need.

As for the quiest off-season... having the debates is half the fun in the Frenzy!

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I'll ruminate about this a little more then a come up with a more defined system then, and then we can toss it around.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

Mike, I was looking at your "taxi squad" proposal for a foundation to build from. In that, the idea was to have a certain number of free moves from the DS to the active roster, and back again in case of emergencies. I was wondering what the thoughts we be instead of limiting the number of moves to a predermined number, to disuade moves to the DS by adding a CB bonus to that players contract. We could have a predetermined bonus scale for promoting a player to the AR, and then moving him back to the DS (the bonus would only take effect in the player was subsequently demoted). I'm thinking something along the lines of 25cb per week activated, maxing out at 100cb. Thus, if you need a one week fill in, it will cost 25cb on that players contract if you move him back the next week. This bonus would take effect immediatly upon moving back to the DS (for tracking simplicity sake), and would not effect year end performance bonuses. The amount is obviously subject to debate, but I figured it needs to be something large enough to make people reconsider moving guys back and forth constantly, but small enought that if you actually needed a player for a small window of time, you could do it.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I like it, though I just want to make sure that the "Taxi" bonus would permantly increase the base salary for said player, and not be treated like a cap hit against the teams current cap? Does that make sense?

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

Right, it would be a permanent bump to the players salary, treated just like the performance bonus, and be used in the calculations for future years.

IE, Player A has a salary of 100, and a 4 year contract (100, 110, 121, 133). He is activated for two weeks, and then demoted back to the DS. He gets a 50 cb bonus (25 X two weeks). His salary is immediately bumbed 50 cb and his contract is now 150 (165, 182, and 200 in subsequent years).

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I like it a lot... if a guy is activated for say 6 weeks that's a 150cb cap increase if you want to demote him... that's huge... however the deterrent as a 1 or 2 week sub isn't too bad.

Great idea... we should brainstorm on this some more and fine tune it into a proposal.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

Originally I was thinking we'd have a 100cb cap per demotion. I wasn't married to the idea, but I'd think we'd need some sort of limit, so the pain is reduced. It would get to the point that you'd rather just keep the guy on the active roster instead of paying the bonus, and then the purpose is defeated. Maybe some others have input as well (if anyone is still checking in).

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

OK, one more suggestion for the taxi squad. I think one thing we would need to prevent is teams moving elligible players to the taxi squad in order to cut them and save the active roster the cap hit to the active roster salary cap (ie, if I signed a half ass receiver this off season, I could move quarter ass receiver Bryant Johnson back to the taxi squad, and then cut him without a cap hit to my active roster). I think that is a cheap out, so I think we should have a rule that if a player has been active for a certain number of weeks, say 3, then releasing that player carries a cap hit to the active roster even if they are released from the taxi squad. The number of active weeks resulting in the cap hit is debatable, but I think we would need some number there.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I think your logic is sound, however, IMO, I think if a player was active even for 1 week, a full cap hit shout occur if the player is cut off the DS at a later date.

IMO, once a player is activated you should not be able to escape the cap hit ever, even if said player was demoted back to the DS.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

What about a player that has been on the active roster for an entire season but still has DS eligibility left? Can they be moved back to the DS (with the $100 hit of course)?

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I wouldn't have objection to that.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

As I have written it, that would be allowed. Also, to clarify, the $100 would be a bonus added to the players current year base salary, not a hit to the salary cap.

Also, I think Mike proposed there be no cap on the $25/week bonus, so under that plan, leaving a player on the active roster for a whole year, and then moving them back to the taxi squad would result in a $425 bonus to the player's salary. That would be quite the disincentive I think.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I'm not opposed to putting a cap on the salary bonus, but I do think 100 cb's is too low. I like the 25 cb's per week active... how about a cap of 200 cb's on the salary increase, which would be equivilent to keeping a DS guy active 8 weeks or more and then being demoted back to the DS.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I agree with Mike. I think once a player hits the active squad they should no longer be treated as green. We have to keep the active squad promotion a serious matter with the coreseponding consquences, such as a full salary cap hit.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

This makes sense to me (I think) but would it be possible to get all of the individual thread ideas untangled and pulled together so we can start to evaluate them?

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I think 200 cb's is too low. I think 25 cb's per week with no cap on the salary increase would be better. My 2 cents.

Edit: Although thinking about it some more I think 8 weeks (more than half the season) would be a good cut-off point. In other words, if the player isn't placed back on the DS after 8 weeks, he can no longer be placed back on the DS by that team, period....keeping the 25 cb's per week active for a max of 200 cb salary increase for placing a player back on the DS. So from DS to Active back to DS:

1 week - 25 cb salary increase
2 weeks - 50 cb salary increase
3 weeks - 75 cb salary increase
4 weeks - 100 cb salary increase
5 weeks - 125 cb salary increase
6 weeks - 150 cb salary increase
7 weeks - 175 cb salary increase
8 weeks - 200 cb salary increase
9+ weeks - cannot be placed back on DS by team
<script src="chrome://greasemonkey/content/scripts/1102161148673"></script><script src="chrome://greasemonkey/content/scripts/1102237157909"></script><script src="chrome://greasemonkey/content/scripts/1102161148673"></script><script src="chrome://greasemonkey/content/scripts/1102237157909"></script>

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I think Swords is onto something here. Because the arguments I'm hearing for a cap, if I understand them, I would summarize as "after a point, the salary increase will get so large that it would be a disincentive to move the plaer back to the taxi squad anyway." But this is a reason not to have a cap. Or, as the Swords are poitning out: if you're trying to deter someone from doing something because you don't want them to do it, is there a reason not to just outlaw it instead of deterring it?

I would say either capping the number of weeks after which a player could be moved back to the taxi squad, or having no caps at all, both make more sense than capping the salary penalty for moving a player back to the taxi squad. Being able to move a player from the Active Roster but not lose their services is a new and powerful move; we should be limiting the upside, not limiting the downside.

I could see why we might want to cap the number of weeks after which a promoted player could be returned to the taxi squad, but maybe no cap at all is necessary. Will someone be able to abuse the system if they're paying the penalty of a 25cb/week salary increase? I have trouble seeing how, but perhaps I lack vision.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

Hey Jeremy.. you may want to fix your sig... you are a memebr of the EASTERN DIVISION.... you've NEVER been in the "Central" lol!

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - DS Taxi Squad
 

Yeah, I can't imagine how I'd get that mixed up since I've been living in Chicago this whole time.... ;)

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - DS Taxi Squad
 

The central must be pretty narrow since the MN franchise is in the west.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

After considering it, I could be convinced that we could cap the period of time you have to demote a player back to the DS would be 8 weeks, if that is what the majority prefers. I'd still prefer no cap, or a longer period of time to demote. Say 8 weeks, or the end of the regular season, whichever is later.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion
 

I could go either way. A capped time period or no cap. IMO it really won't make much difference, as the longer a guy stays active the more prohibitive it'd become to place him back on the DS due to the escalating pay increase he'd be due.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - DS Taxi Squad
 

I don't care either way...